There is an unspoken sub-text at play here: what President Putin said in his column is pretty much what American liberals and leftists have been saying about the United States since the 1960s. From the standpoint of American liberals, there is nothing the least bit new or controversial in anything Mr. Putin wrote in his column. He is merely hoisting President Obama and his liberal friends by their own ideological petard.

I find the last couple of weeks a total belly laugh, modulo the slain Syrians.

Please, tell us when and where this has ever existed. Even more interesting would be evidence of these "universal principles of liberty and equality". Europe is crowded. The US is not. It's pretty easy to lay low and hole up, and still do very well. That's the difference between them. Wide open spaces, land of opportunity, that's what sets them apart. The idealism is just that and nothing more. A wonderful piece of propaganda that still serves today, despite all the eviden

Please, tell us when and where this has ever existed....
Sure is fun to kill the messenger, and vilify the message, isn't it?

The message is liberty.
I'll grant it's never been perfect, and can at best move in the direction of perfection.
What fascinates me is your consistently silly willingness to punt, rather than drive for liberty.

He doesn't mean liberty. He means 'liberty'. The liberty of the private, exclusive club and the liberty of 'knowing your place', liberty filtered by cultural constraints, liberty as framed by the peephole he is peering through, liberty defined by post civil war reconstruction in America. Real liberty is anarchy, and everybody hates that.

At the risk of sounding all Pudgy, you're falsifying my viewpoint.
I reject you both theoretically and practically.
For me liberty means mature, unfettered action with the minimal amount of external interference for societal deconfliction and safety.
Request you adjust your narrative to reflect reality.

I prefer the dictionary:...the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Your definition doesn't come close. It is full of obfuscated coded caveats, as determined by your religious 'southern conservatism', which defends privilege. "Deconfliction and safety"?? Please! That sounds just like, "...a safe and secure society, which I assure you will last for ten thous

You can have the liberty you want. You shall not deny others to theirs, or their definitions, no matter how offensive and 'hedonistic' you find them to be. You are the absolutist trying to impose 'purpose' here, not me. Again you project... Procrustes -...the undesirable practice of tailoring data to fit its container or some other preconceived structure., yes, how very appropriate.:-) I always have liked your style. Luckily, my mattress is king size.

Pure rant with no argument. Sure is fun to watch authoritarians bicker with each other. Putin did, and is doing the 'system' a big favor, propping up the facade, and saving face for all involved. It breaths new life into its 'credibility'. It pacified the protesters. I would like to meet the producers and directors of this little show.

Yet nobody comes up with evidence to refute it. Hubris is a good description of the reaction. Putin is Russia's Reagan, though without so many worshipers. Conservatives, authoritarians of all colors, definitely know all about crap.

Putin makes a few omissions--e.g. he doesn't mention the weapons supplied to the Syrian government by foreign powers (such as Russia). But the analysis he offers is much more realistic than the black-and-white version being offered by Washington.

If he's serving anybody their own dog food, it's the proponents of American exceptionalism, particularly as expressed by the notion that the US is somewhat qualified or entitled to act as unilateral world policeman.

Putin makes a few omissions--e.g. he doesn't mention the weapons supplied to the Syrian government by foreign powers (such as Russia).

Of course he doesn't. He does have a dog in this race. What's at stake here isn't chump change.

If he's serving anybody their own dog food, it's the proponents of American exceptionalism, particularly as expressed by the notion that the US is somewhat qualified or entitled to act as unilateral world policeman.

The Cold War happened.
The U.S. still hasn't figured out what will follow the disintegration of its dancing partner some twenty years back.
In the bigger historical picture, the impedance mismatch between the Constitution and hegemony is increasingly obvious. Obama has promised fundamental transformation, but hasn't sold the whole European welfare state idea very well.

The U.S. still hasn't figured out what will follow the disintegration of its dancing partner some twenty years back.

In the bigger historical picture, the impedance mismatch between the Constitution and hegemony is increasingly obvious.

Spot on, spot on, and spot on.

Obama has promised fundamental transformation, but hasn't sold the whole European welfare state idea very well.

He's not even trying. ObamaCare is a sellout to the Insurance-Industrial Complex, people still have no right to paid vacations or paid parental leave (nor are these even on the table), workers' collective bargaining rights remain sold down the river, and the country is still full of nutjobs with guns. Meanwhile, the US continues to throw its "We're on a mission from God" weight around the planet while, at home, the 1% continue to grow their slice of the pie.